February 6, 2025

Reimagining Your SOC: Unlocking a Proactive State of Security

Reimagining your SOC Part 3/3: This blog explores the challenges security professionals face in managing cyber risk, evaluates current market solutions, and outlines strategies for building a proactive security posture.

Written by

Gabriel Few-Wiegratz

Product Marketing Manager, Exposure Management and Incident Readiness

Inside the SOC

Darktrace cyber analysts are world-class experts in threat intelligence, threat hunting and incident response, and provide 24/7 SOC support to thousands of Darktrace customers around the globe. Inside the SOC is exclusively authored by these experts, providing analysis of cyber incidents and threat trends, based on real-world experience in the field.

Written by

Gabriel Few-Wiegratz

Product Marketing Manager, Exposure Management and Incident Readiness

Feb 2025

Part 1: How to Achieve Proactive Network Security

Part 2: Overcoming Alert Fatigue with AI-Led Investigations

While the success of a SOC team is often measured through incident management effectiveness (E.g MTTD, MTTR), a true measure of maturity is the reduction of annual security incidents.

Organizations face an increasing number of alerts each year, yet the best SOC teams place focus on proactive operations which don’t reduce the threshold for what becomes an incident but targets the source risks that prevent them entirely.

Freeing up time to focus on cyber risk management is a challenge in and of itself, we cover this in the previous two blogs in this series (see above). However, when the time comes to manage risk, there are several challenges that are unique when compared to detection & response functions within cybersecurity.

Why do cyber risks matter?

While the volume of reported CVEs is increasing at an alarming rate^[1], determining the criticality of each vulnerability is becoming increasingly challenging, especially when the likelihood and impact may be different for each organization. Yet vulnerabilities have stood as an important signpost in traditional security and mitigation strategies. Now, without clear prioritization, potentially severe risks may go unreported, leaving organizations exposed to significant threats.

Vulnerabilities also represent just one area of potential risks. Cyberattacks are no longer confined to a single technology type. They now traverse various platforms, including cloud services, email systems, and networks. As technology infrastructure continues to expand, so does the attack surface, making comprehensive visibility across all technology types essential for reducing risk and preventing multi-vector attacks.

However, achieving this visibility is increasingly difficult as infrastructure grows and the cyber risk market remains oversaturated. This visibility challenge extends beyond technology to include personnel and individual cyber hygiene which can still exacerbate broader cyberattacks whether malicious or not.

Organizations must adopt a holistic approach to preventative security. This includes improving visibility across all technology types, addressing human risks, and mobilizing swiftly against emerging security gaps.

“By 2026, 60% of cybersecurity functions will implement business-impact-focused risk assessment methods, aligning cybersecurity strategies with organizational objectives.” ^[2]

The costs of a fragmented approach

Figure 1: Organizations may have a combination of siloed preventative security measures or technologies in place

Unlike other security tools (like SIEM, NDR or SOAR) which contain an established set of capabilities, cyber risk reduction has not traditionally been defined by a single market, rather a variety of products and practices that each provide their own value and are overwhelming if too many are adopted. Just some examples include:

‍Threat and Vulnerability management: Leverages threat intelligence, CVEs and asset management; however, leaves teams with significant patching workflows, ignores business & human factors and is reliant on the speed of teams to keep up with each passing update. ‍
Continuous Controls Monitoring (CCM): Automatically audits the effectiveness of security controls based on industry frameworks but requires careful prioritization and human calculations to set-up effectively. Focuses solely on mobilization.‍
Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS): Automates security posture testing through mock scenarios but require previous prioritization and might not tell you how your specific technologies can be mitigated to reduce that risk.‍
Posture Management technologies: Siloed approaches across Cloud, SaaS, Data Security and even Gen AI that reactively assess misconfigurations and suggest improvements but with only industry frameworks to validate the importance of the risks.‍
Red teaming & Penetration testing: Required by several regulations including (GDPR, HIPPA, PCI, DSS), many organizations hire 'red teams' to perform real breaches in trusted conditions. Penetration tests reveal many flaws, but are not continuous, requiring third-party input and producing long to-do lists with input of broader business risk dependent on the cost of the service.‍
Third-party auditors: Organizations also use third-party auditors to identify assets with vulnerabilities, grade compliance, and recommend improvements. At best, these exercises become tick-box exercises for companies to stay in compliance with the responsibility still on the client to perform further discovery and actioning.

Many of these individual solutions on the market offer simple enhancement, or an automated version of an existing human security task. Ultimately, they lack an understanding of the most critical assets at your organization and are limited in scope, only working in a specific technology area or with the data you provide.

Even when these strategies are complete, implementation of the results require resources, coordination, and buy-in from IT, cybersecurity, and compliance departments. Given the nature of modern business structures, this can be labor and time intensive as responsibilities are shared by organizational segmentation spread across IT, governance, risk and compliance (GRC), and security teams.

Prioritize your true cyber risk with a CTEM approach

Organizations with robust security programs benefit from well-defined policies, standards, key risk indicators (KRIs), and operational metrics, making it easier to measure and report cyber risk accurately.

Implementing a framework like Gartner’s CTEM (Continuous Threat Exposure Management) can help governance by defining the most relevant risks to each organization and which specific solutions meet your improvement needs.

This five-step approach—scoping, discovery, prioritization, validation, and mobilization—encourages focused management cycles, better delegation of responsibilities and a firm emphasis on validating potential risks through technological methods like attack path modeling or breach and attack simulation to add credibility.

Implementing CTEM requires expertise and structure. This begins with an exposure management solution developed uniquely alongside a core threat detection and response offering, to provide visibility of an organization’s most critical risks, whilst linking directly to their incident-based workflows.

“By 2026, organizations prioritizing their security investments, based on a continuous threat exposure management program, will realize a two-third reduction in breaches.” ^[3]

Achieving a proactive security posture across the whole estate

Unlike conventional tools that focus on isolated risks, Darktrace / Proactive Exposure Management breaks down traditional barriers. Teams can define risk scopes with full, prioritized visibility of the critical risks between: IT/OT networks, email, Active Directory, cloud resources, operational groups, (or even the external attack surface by integrating with Darktrace / Attack Surface Management).

Our innovative, AI-led risk discovery provides a view that mirrors actual attacker methodologies. It does this through advanced algorithms that determine risk based on business importance, rather than traditional device-type prioritization. By implementing a sophisticated damage assessment methodology, security teams don’t just prioritize via severity but instead, the inherent impact, damage, weakness and external exposure of an asset or user.

These calculations also revolutionize vulnerability management by combining industry standard CVE measurements with that organization-specific context to ensure patch management efforts are efficient, rather than an endless list.

Darktrace also integrates MITRE ATT&CK framework mappings to connect all risks through attack path modeling. This offers validation to our AI’s scoring by presenting real world incident scenarios that could occur across your technologies, and the actionable mitigations to mobilize against them.

For those human choke points, security may also deploy targeted phishing engagements. These send real but harmless email ‘attacks’ to test employee susceptibility, strengthening your ability to identify weak points in your security posture, while informing broader governance strategies.

Combining risk with live detection and response

Together, each of these capabilities let teams take the best steps towards reducing risk and the volume of incidents they face. However, getting proactive also sharpens your ability to handle live threats if they occur.

During real incidents Darktrace users can quickly evaluate the potential impact of affected assets, create their own risk detections based on internal policies, strengthen their autonomous response along critical attack paths, or even see the possible stage of the next attack.

By continually ingesting risk information into live triage workflows, security teams will develop a proactive-first mindset, prioritizing the assets and alerts that have the most impact to the business. This lets them utilize their resource in the most efficient way, freeing up even more time for risk management, mitigation and ensuring continuity for the business.

Whether your organization is laying the foundation for a cybersecurity program or enhancing an advanced one, Darktrace’s self-learning AI adapts to your needs:

‍Foundational stage: For organizations establishing visibility and automating detection and response.‍
Integrated stage: For teams expanding coverage across domains and consolidating tools for simplicity.‍
Proactive stage: For mature security programs enhancing posture with vulnerability management and risk prioritization.

The Darktrace ActiveAI Security Platform empowers security teams to adopt a preventative defense strategy by using Cyber AI Analyst and autonomous response to fuel quicker triage, incident handling and give time back for proactive efforts designed around business impact. The platform encapsulates the critical capabilities that help organizations be proactive and stay ahead of evolving threats.

darktrace proactive exposure management solution brief reduce risk cyber risk

Download the solution brief

Maximize security visibility and reduce risk:

Unify risk exposure across all technologies with AI-driven scoring for CVEs, human communications, and architectures.
Gain cost and ROI insights on CVE risks, breach costs, patch latency, and blind spots.
Strengthen employee awareness with targeted phishing simulations and training.
Align proactive and reactive security by assessing device compromises and prevention strategies.
Reduce risk with tailored guidance that delivers maximum impact with minimal effort.

Take control of your security posture today. Download here!

‍

References

[1] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/search, Search all, Statistics, Total matches By Year 2023 against 2024

[2] https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/5598859

[3] https://www.gartner.com/en/articles/how-to-manage-cybersecurity-threats-not-episodes

Written by

Gabriel Few-Wiegratz

Product Marketing Manager, Exposure Management and Incident Readiness

Inside the SOC

Written by

Gabriel Few-Wiegratz

Product Marketing Manager, Exposure Management and Incident Readiness

Malware Research Engineer

•

April 28, 2026

The Darktrace Community

Watch the NIS2 Webinar

Blog

Network

April 29, 2026

Darktrace Malware Analysis: Jenkins Honeypot Reveals Emerging Botnet Targeting Online Games

DDoS Botnet discovery

To observe adversary behavior in real time, Darktrace operates a global honeypot network known as “CloudyPots”, designed to capture malicious activity across a wide range of services, protocols, and cloud platforms. These honeypots provide valuable insights into the techniques, tools, and malware actively targeting internet‑facing infrastructure.

How attackers used a Jenkins honeypot to deploy the botnet

One such software honeypotted by Darktrace is Jenkins, a CI build system that allows developers to build code and run tests automatically. The instance of Jenkins in Darktrace’s honeypot is intentionally configured with a weak password, allowing attackers to obtain remote code execution on the service.

In one instance observed by Darktrace on March 18, 2026, a threat actor seemingly attempted to target Darktrace’s Jenkins honeypot to deploy a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) botnet. Further analysis by Darktrace’s Threat Research team revealed the botnet was intended to specifically target video game servers.

How the Jenkins scriptText endpoint was used for remote code execution

The Jenkins build system features an endpoint named scriptText, which enables users to programmatically send new jobs, in the form of a Groovy script. Groovy is a programming language with similar syntax to Java and runs using the Java Virtual Machine (JVM). An attacker can abuse the scriptText endpoint to run a malicious script, achieving code execution on the victim host.

*Figure 1: Request sent to the scriptText endpoint containing the malicious script.*

The malicious script is sent using the form-data content type, which results in the contents of the script being URL encoded. This encoding can be decoded to recover the original script, as shown in Figure 2, where Darktrace Analysts decoded the script using CyberChef,

*Figure 2: The malicious script decoded using CyberChef.*

What happens after Jenkins is compromised

As Jenkins can be deployed on both Microsoft Windows and Linux systems, the script includes separate branches to target each platform.

In the case of Windows, the script performs the following actions:

Downloads a payload from 103[.]177.110.202/w.exe and saves it to C:\Windows\Temp\update.dat.
Renames the “update.dat” file to “win_sys.exe” (within the same folder)
Runs the Unblock-File command is used to remove security restrictions typically applied to files downloaded from the internet.
Adds a firewall allow rule is added for TCP port 5444, which the payload uses for command-and-control (C2) communications.

On Linux systems, the script will instead use a Bash one-liner to download the payload from 103[.]177.110.202/bot_x64.exe to /tmp/bot and execute it.

Why this botnet uses a single IP for delivery and command and control

The IP 103[.]177.110.202 belongs to Webico Company Limited, specifically its Tino brand, a Vietnamese company that offers domain registrar services and server hosting. Geolocation data indicates that the IP is located in Ho Chi Minh City. Open-source intelligence (OSINT) analysis revealed multiple malicious associations tied to the IP [1].

Darktrace’s analysis found that the IP 103[.]177.110.202 is used for multiple stages of an attack, including spreading and initial access, delivering payloads, and C2 communication. This is an unusual combination, as many malware families separate their spreading servers from their C2 infrastructure. Typically, malware distribution activity results in a high volume of abuse complaints, which may result in server takedowns or service suspension by internet providers. Separate C2 infrastructure ensures that existing infections remain controllable even if the spreading server is disrupted.

How the malware evades detection and maintains persistence

Analysis of the Linux payload (bot _x64)

The sample begins by setting the environmental variables BUILD_ID and JENKINS_NODE_COOKIE to “dontKillMe”. By default, Jenkins terminates long-running scripts after a defined timeout period; however, setting these variables to “dontKillMe” bypasses this check, allowing the script to continue running uninterrupted.

The script then performs several stealth behaviors to evade detection. First, it deletes the original executable from disk and then renames itself to resemble the legitimate kernel processes “ksoftirqd/0” or “kworker”, which are found on Linux installations by default. It then uses a double fork to daemonize itself, enabling it to run in the background, before redirecting standard input, standard output, and standard error to /dev/null, hiding any logging from the malware. Finally, the script creates a signal handler for signals such as SIGTERM, causing them to be ignored and making it harder to stop the process.

*Figure 3: Stealth component of the main function*

How the botnet communicates with command and control (C2)

The sample then connects to the C2 server and sends the detected architecture of the system on which the agent was installed. The malware then enters a loop to handle incoming commands.

The sample features two types of commands, utility commands used to manage the malware, and commands to trigger attacks. Three special commands are defined: “PING” (which replies with PONG as a keep-alive mechanism), “!stop” which causes the malware to exit, and “!update”, which triggers the malware to download a new version from the C2 server and restart itself.

*Figure 4: Initial connection to the C2 sever.*

What DDoS attack techniques this botnet uses

The attack commands consist of the following:

Many of these commands invoke the same function despite appearing to be different attack techniques. For example, specialized attacks such as Cloudflare bypass (cfbypass, uam) use the exact same function as a standard HTTP attack. This may indicate the threat actor is attempting to make the botnet look like it has more capabilities than it actually has, or it could suggest that these commands are placeholders for future attack functionality that has yet to be implemented

All the commands take three arguments: IP, port to attack, and the duration of the attack.

attack_udp and attack_udp_pps

The attack_udp and attack_udp_pps functions both use a basic loop and sendto system call to send UDP packets to the victim’s IP, either targeting a predetermined port or a random port. The attack_udp function sends packets with 1,450 bytes of data, aimed at bandwidth saturation, while the attack_udp_pps function sends smaller 64-byte packets. In both cases, the data body of the packet consists of entirely random data.

*Figure 5: Code for the UDP attack method*

attack_dayz

The attack_dayz function follows a similar structure to the attack_udp function; however, instead of sending random data, it will instead send a TSource Engine Query. This command is specific to Valve Source Engine servers and is designed to return a large volume of data about the targeted server. By repeatedly flooding this request, an attacker can exhaust the resources of a server using a comparatively small amount of data.

The Valve Source Engine server, also called Source Engine Dedicated server, is a server developed by video game company Valve that enables multiplayer gameplay for titles built using the Source game engine, which is also developed by Valve. The Source engine is used in games such as Counterstrike and Team Fortress 2. Curiously, the function attack_dayz, appears to be named after another popular online multiplayer game, DayZ; however, DayZ does not use the Valve Source Engine, making it unclear why this name was chosen.

The code for the “attack_dayz” attack function. — *Figure 6: The code for the* “*attack_dayz” attack function.*

attack_tcp_push

The attack_tcp_push function establishes a TCP socket with the non-blocking flag set, allowing it to rapidly call functions such as connect() and send() without waiting for their completion. For the duration of the attack, it enters a while loop in which it repeatedly connects to the victim, sends 1,024 bytes of random data, and then closes the connection. This process repeats until the attack duration ends. If the mode flag is set to 1, the function also configures the socket with TCP no-delay enabled, allowing for packets to be sent immediately without buffering, resulting in a higher packet rate and a more effective attack.

*Figure 7: The code for the TCP attack function.*

attack_http

Similar to attach_tcp_push, attack_http configures a socket with no-delay enabled and non-blocking set. After establishing the connection, it sends 64 HTTP GET requests before closing the socket.

*Figure 8: The code for the HTTP attack function.*

attack_special

The attack_special function creates a UDP socket and sets the port and payload based on the value of the mode flag:

Mode 0: Port 53 (DNS), sending a 10-byte malformed data packet.
Mode 1: Port 27015 (Valve Source Engine), sending the previously observed TSource Engine Query packet.
Mode 2: Port 123 (NTP), sending the start of an NTP control request.

*Figure 9: The code for the attack_special function.*

What this botnet reveals about opportunistic attacks on internet-facing systems

Jenkins is one of the less frequently exploited services honeypotted by Darktrace, with only a handful campaigns observed. Nonetheless, the emergence of this new DDoS botnet demonstrates that attackers continue to opportunistically exploit any internet-facing misconfiguration at scale to grow the botnet strength.

While the hosts most commonly affected by these opportunistic attacks are usually “lower-value” systems, this distinction is largely irrelevant for botnets, where numbers alone are more important to overall effectiveness

The presence of game-specific DoS techniques further highlights that the gaming industry continues to be extensively targeted by cyber attackers, with Cloudflare reporting it as the fourth most targeted industry [2]. This botnet has likely already been used against game servers, serving as a reminder for server operators to ensure appropriate mitigations are in place.

Credit to Nathaniel Bill (Malware Research Engineer)
Edited by Ryan Traill (Content Manager)

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

103[.]177.110.202 - Attacker and command-and-control IP

F79d05065a2ba7937b8781e69b5859d78d5f65f01fb291ae27d28277a5e37f9b – bot_x64

References

[1] https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/86db2530298e6335d3ecc66c2818cfbd0a6b11fcdfcb75f575b9fcce1faa00f1/detection

[2] - https://blog.cloudflare.com/ddos-threat-report-2025-q4/

About the author

Nathaniel Bill

Malware Research Engineer

Blog

AI

April 28, 2026

State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: 87% of security professionals are seeing more AI-driven threats, but few feel ready to stop them

The findings in this blog are taken from Darktrace’s annual State of AI Cybersecurity Report 2026.

In part 1 of this blog series, we explored how AI is remaking the attack surface, with new tools, models, agents — and vulnerabilities — popping up just about everywhere. Now embedded in workflows across the enterprise, and often with far-reaching access to sensitive data, AI systems are quickly becoming a favorite target of cyber threat actors.

Among bad actors, though, AI is more often used as a tool than a target. Nearly 62% of organizations experienced a social engineering attack involving a deepfake, or an incident in which bad actors used AI-generated video or audio to try to trick a biometric authentication system, compared to 32% that reported an AI prompt injection attack.

In the hands of attackers, AI can do many things. It’s being used across the entire kill chain: to supercharge reconnaissance, personalize phishing, accelerate lateral movement, and automate data exfiltration. Evidence from Anthropic demonstrates that threat actors have harnessed AI to orchestrate an entire cyber espionage campaign from end to end, allegedly running it with minimal human involvement.

CISOs inhabit a world where these increasingly sophisticated attacks are ubiquitous. Naturally, combatting AI-powered threats is top of mind among security professionals, but many worry about whether their capabilities are up to the challenge.

AI-powered threats at scale: no longer hypothetical

AI-driven threats share signature characteristics. They operate at speed and scale. Automated tools can probe multiple attack paths, search for multiple vulnerabilities and send out a barrage of phishing emails, all within seconds. The ability to attack everywhere at once, at a pace that no human operator could sustain, is the hallmark of an AI-powered threat. AI-powered threats are also dynamic. They can adapt their behavior to spread across a network more efficiently or rewrite their own code to evade detection.

Security teams are seeing the signs that they’re fighting AI-powered threats at every stage of the kill chain, and the sophistication of these threats is testing their resolve and their resources.

73% say that AI-powered cyber threats are having a significant impact on their organization
92% agree that these threats are forcing them to upgrade their defenses
87% agree that AI is significantly increasing the sophistication and success rate of malware
87% say AI is significantly increasing the workload of their security operations team

These teams now confront a challenge unlike anything they’ve seen before in their careers, and the risks are compounding across workflows, tools, data, and identities. It’s no surprise that 66% of security professionals say their role is more stressful today than it was five years ago, or that 47% report feeling overwhelmed at work.

Up all night: Security professionals’ worry list is long

Traditional security methods were never built to handle the complexity and subtlety of AI-driven behavior. Working in the trenches, defenders have deep firsthand experience of how difficult it can be to detect and stop AI-assisted threats.

Increasingly effective social engineering attacks are among their top concerns. 50% of security leaders mentioned hyper-personalized phishing campaigns as one of their biggest worries, while 40% voiced apprehension about deepfake voice fraud. These concerns are legitimate: AI-generated phishing emails are increasingly tailored to individual organizations, business activities, or individuals. Gone are the telltale signs – like grammar or spelling mistakes – that once distinguished malicious communications. Notably, 33% of the malicious emails Darktrace observed in 2025 contained over 1,000 characters, indicating probable LLM usage.

Security leaders also worry about how bad actors can leverage AI to make attacks even faster and more dynamic. 45% listed automated vulnerability scanning and exploit chaining among their biggest concerns, while 40% mentioned adaptive malware.

Confidence is lacking

Protecting against AI demands capabilities that many organizations have not yet built. It requires interpreting new indicators, uncovering the subtle intent within interactions, and recognizing when AI behavior – human or machine – could be suspicious. Leaders know that their current tools aren’t prepared for this. Nearly half don’t feel confident in their ability to defend against AI-powered attacks.

We’ve asked participants in our survey about their confidence for the last three years now. In 2024, 60% said their organizations were not adequately prepared to defend against AI-driven threats. Last year, that percentage shrunk to 45%, a possible indicator that security programs were making progress. Since then, however, the progress has apparently stalled. 46% of security leaders now feel inadequately prepared to protect their organizations amidst the current threat landscape.

Some of these differences are accentuated across different cultures. Respondents in Japan are far less confident (77% say they are not adequately prepared) than respondents in Brazil (where only 21% don’t feel prepared).

Where security programs are falling short

It’s no longer the case that cybersecurity is overlooked or underfunded by executive leadership. Across industries, management recognizes that AI-powered threats are a growing problem, and insufficient budget is near the bottom of most CISO’s list of reasons that they struggle to defend against AI-powered threats.

It’s the things that money can’t buy – experience, knowledge, and confidence – that are holding programs back. Near the top of the list of inhibitors that survey participants mention is “insufficient knowledge or use of AI-driven countermeasures.” As bad actors embrace AI technologies en masse, this challenge is coming into clearer focus: attack-centric security tools, which rely on static rules, signatures, and historical attack patterns, were never designed to handle the complexity and subtlety of AI-driven attacks. These challenges feel new to security teams, but they are the core problems Darktrace was built to solve.

Our Self-Learning AI develops a deep understanding of what “normal” looks like for your organization –including unique traffic patterns, end user habits, application and device profiles – so that it can detect and stop novel, dynamic threats at the first encounter. By focusing on learning the business, rather than the attack, our AI can keep pace with AI-powered threats as they evolve.

‍

Explore the full State of AI Cybersecurity 2026 report for deeper insights into how security leaders are responding to AI-driven risks.

Learn more about securing AI in your enterprise.

‍

[related-resource]

About the author

The Darktrace Community

Your data. Our AI.

Elevate your network security with Darktrace AI

Get a demo

Check out this article by Darktrace: Reimagining Your SOC: Unlocking a Proactive State of Security

Reimagining Your SOC: Unlocking a Proactive State of Security

Why do cyber risks matter?

The costs of a fragmented approach

Prioritize your true cyber risk with a CTEM approach

Achieving a proactive security posture across the whole estate

Combining risk with live detection and response

Download the solution brief

References

Darktrace Malware Analysis: Jenkins Honeypot Reveals Emerging Botnet Targeting Online Games

State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: 87% of security professionals are seeing more AI-driven threats, but few feel ready to stop them

Enjoying the blog?

More in this series

Darktrace Malware Analysis: Jenkins Honeypot Reveals Emerging Botnet Targeting Online Games

How a Compromised eScan Update Enabled Multi‑Stage Malware and Blockchain C2

How Chinese-Nexus Cyber Operations Have Evolved – And What It Means For Cyber Risk and Resilience

Blog

Network

April 29, 2026

Darktrace Malware Analysis: Jenkins Honeypot Reveals Emerging Botnet Targeting Online Games

DDoS Botnet discovery

How attackers used a Jenkins honeypot to deploy the botnet

How the Jenkins scriptText endpoint was used for remote code execution

What happens after Jenkins is compromised

Why this botnet uses a single IP for delivery and command and control

How the malware evades detection and maintains persistence

How the botnet communicates with command and control (C2)

What DDoS attack techniques this botnet uses

attack_udp and attack_udp_pps

attack_dayz

attack_tcp_push

What this botnet reveals about opportunistic attacks on internet-facing systems

Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)

Blog

AI

April 28, 2026

State of AI Cybersecurity 2026: 87% of security professionals are seeing more AI-driven threats, but few feel ready to stop them

AI-powered threats at scale: no longer hypothetical

Up all night: Security professionals’ worry list is long

Confidence is lacking

Where security programs are falling short